Author
Topic: A good new player experience. (Read 503 times)

Why would you need to point out that higher tier items = better? Isn't that the entire reason they exist?

Nah, just that a platoon (50) of badasses equal about an oversized company (200) of wannabes. Not sure on where the bar is set, but 50goodvs200bad was what I picked up somewhere. Fit the terms, I thought.

I have no plans to automate unit grouping, but De-Legro and I have talked about making the main military unit a group of soldiers.

The system works, I just want less clicks, I guess. I find that I miss a few fairly often, or place the wrong one in a group, or something dumb. A way to merge groups (other than militiaswap) would help, but a quick way to lock some men together with a helpful tag.

When the combat update happens and it goes fully 2D, battle phases as you know them now will no longer exist, sieges will exist as an ongoing "battle", and reinforcements can happen mid-battle (which will be fun to setup).

Care to explain this a bit? I don't remember hearing anything about it and would love to hear what is in plans when it comes to battles. Also, any news on when will the server get moved? I see many improvement are being or have already been done, but would love to see them live.

Nah, just that a platoon (50) of badasses equal about an oversized company (200) of wannabes. Not sure on where the bar is set, but 50goodvs200bad was what I picked up somewhere. Fit the terms, I thought.

The system works, I just want less clicks, I guess. I find that I miss a few fairly often, or place the wrong one in a group, or something dumb. A way to merge groups (other than militiaswap) would help, but a quick way to lock some men together with a helpful tag.

I have no plans to automate unit grouping, but De-Legro and I have talked about making the main military unit a group of soldiers. The plan is for them to act independently in battle, so you can have 2 infantry groups, 1 archer group, and 1 light cavalry group all in the same battle, under your command, acting independently, choosing targets logically and independtly. Pursuing foes, hunting targets, even selectively targeting the enemy leader.

When the combat update happens and it goes fully 2D, battle phases as you know them now will no longer exist, sieges will exist as an ongoing "battle", and reinforcements can happen mid-battle (which will be fun to setup).

If this system gets implemented would we be able to set unit priorities aswell? Lets say we have a cavalry unit, we could set their 1. Priority to counter enemy cavalry when they attack, then 2. Priority to attack archers, 3. Priority to perform skirmishes against enemy infantry in combat, and 4. Priority to run down retreating troops. Or would the unit leader decide all this themselves? Maybe depending on the unit leaders experience this could be more fluid, say a 0 experience unit leader you would only be able to tell what kind of enemy troops to prioritize. But one with say 30 experience you would be able to tell when to prioritise these, as in what I mentioned above. And someone with 100 experience would be able to even act on themselves if they find a reason to? Like instead of waiting on enemy cavalry they would charge at the enemy infantry if our infantry is breaking but they think they could save it?

So, the current plan for battles. All units will exist on a 2 dimensional battlefield, potentially with water and other terrain features modeled. No promises though.

More than 2 sides can exist in a single battle. Theoretically limitless, though I'll probably limit it to like 10.

Archers will have ranges. Melee units will attack those near them only. Units will get bonuses/penalties based on attacking direction.

Battles will be modeled in micro-turns, probably a few minutes each, and units will be able to select tactics from a list of options. The plan is that you'll be able to prioritize those options, but not directly control units. So yes, you could order cavalry to flank on the sides, or have an elite unit go straight for the enemy commanders.

Unit groups will be broken down. Your force will consist of multiple unit groups. Each group will have it's own orders.

Weapons will have bonuses against armor types and vice-versa. This will probably happen before anything else, because we want to change the equipment setup so you have your RPG standard 8 gear slot system. Head, Arms, Hands (2x), Legs, Boots, Gloves, Back. The area you hit will be as important as what you hit it with.

Fortifications WILL be modeled. This is integral to how sieges will operate. Basically, in sieges, you'll have a long-running pseudo-battle, with a different set of unit logic. With the new coordinate system, you could theoretically model the entire city in the battlefield. Meaning when units sally forth, other units will have to actually move to attack them, etc. Especially interesting will be when those besieging are attacked, then the defenders sally. Siege weapons will exist on the battlefield and have construction times n such. Getting supplies into cities will depend on how many attackers, defenders, etc, as well as fortifications n buildings n such.

What this means is that battles will happen over a course of time. If a battle is large enough or timed well enough, you could have battles lasting a significant amount of time. Sieges will last days or weeks, but smaller battles? Dunno.

So, the current plan for battles. All units will exist on a 2 dimensional battlefield, potentially with water and other terrain features modeled. No promises though.

More than 2 sides can exist in a single battle. Theoretically limitless, though I'll probably limit it to like 10.

Archers will have ranges. Melee units will attack those near them only. Units will get bonuses/penalties based on attacking direction.

Battles will be modeled in micro-turns, probably a few minutes each, and units will be able to select tactics from a list of options. The plan is that you'll be able to prioritize those options, but not directly control units. So yes, you could order cavalry to flank on the sides, or have an elite unit go straight for the enemy commanders.

Unit groups will be broken down. Your force will consist of multiple unit groups. Each group will have it's own orders.

Weapons will have bonuses against armor types and vice-versa. This will probably happen before anything else, because we want to change the equipment setup so you have your RPG standard 8 gear slot system. Head, Arms, Hands (2x), Legs, Boots, Gloves, Back. The area you hit will be as important as what you hit it with.

Fortifications WILL be modeled. This is integral to how sieges will operate. Basically, in sieges, you'll have a long-running pseudo-battle, with a different set of unit logic. With the new coordinate system, you could theoretically model the entire city in the battlefield. Meaning when units sally forth, other units will have to actually move to attack them, etc. Especially interesting will be when those besieging are attacked, then the defenders sally. Siege weapons will exist on the battlefield and have construction times n such. Getting supplies into cities will depend on how many attackers, defenders, etc, as well as fortifications n buildings n such.

What this means is that battles will happen over a course of time. If a battle is large enough or timed well enough, you could have battles lasting a significant amount of time. Sieges will last days or weeks, but smaller battles? Dunno.

Edit: That sounded rude.

Not sure whether you've played it, but Dominions (4) does quite a few of those things quite well and that was made by 1, maybe 2 guys? Might want to nick some ideas from there

Logged

22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

So, the current plan for battles. All units will exist on a 2 dimensional battlefield, potentially with water and other terrain features modeled. No promises though.

More than 2 sides can exist in a single battle. Theoretically limitless, though I'll probably limit it to like 10.

Archers will have ranges. Melee units will attack those near them only. Units will get bonuses/penalties based on attacking direction.

Battles will be modeled in micro-turns, probably a few minutes each, and units will be able to select tactics from a list of options. The plan is that you'll be able to prioritize those options, but not directly control units. So yes, you could order cavalry to flank on the sides, or have an elite unit go straight for the enemy commanders.

Unit groups will be broken down. Your force will consist of multiple unit groups. Each group will have it's own orders.

Weapons will have bonuses against armor types and vice-versa. This will probably happen before anything else, because we want to change the equipment setup so you have your RPG standard 8 gear slot system. Head, Arms, Hands (2x), Legs, Boots, Gloves, Back. The area you hit will be as important as what you hit it with.

Fortifications WILL be modeled. This is integral to how sieges will operate. Basically, in sieges, you'll have a long-running pseudo-battle, with a different set of unit logic. With the new coordinate system, you could theoretically model the entire city in the battlefield. Meaning when units sally forth, other units will have to actually move to attack them, etc. Especially interesting will be when those besieging are attacked, then the defenders sally. Siege weapons will exist on the battlefield and have construction times n such. Getting supplies into cities will depend on how many attackers, defenders, etc, as well as fortifications n buildings n such.

What this means is that battles will happen over a course of time. If a battle is large enough or timed well enough, you could have battles lasting a significant amount of time. Sieges will last days or weeks, but smaller battles? Dunno.

I feel like if you want to really get the authentic feel of medieval battles (which is what it looks like to me), you should probably go back to being able to evade several times aswell, but with a small chance of failure. Because battles didn't happen because because one side wanted it, most of the time they happened because both sides wanted it, or it was to lift a siege on a fort or something. Ofcourse you would still leave in the chance of evades failing, because battles that only one side wanted still did happen, but I dont think it should be large chance.

A way to merge groups (other than militiaswap) would help, but a quick way to lock some men together with a helpful tag.

Herp, 'regroup soldiers by' buttons seem to do the trick, so ignore that. Guess I overlooked it. Might be handy to have a "set to=group x" option (merge checked units into a group), but I withdraw the complaint. Much easier to chunk squads/platoons/companies together now.

Willy, just wanna say thank you. Your characters may be relatively new, but one of them is making the game totally worth playing for me (an even newer newb). I'll do what I can to bring the fun too, I've got a good 'un to learn from!